In Keenan v. Bloomberg L.P., the First Department affirmed the Supreme Court’s denial of Bloomberg’s pre‑answer motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff’s allegations—taken as true at this procedural stage—were sufficient to state multiple causes of action under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws, as well as New York’s Equal Pay Act.
The Court first rejected Bloomberg’s timeliness argument. Although the defendant contended that many of the alleged acts fell outside the applicable limitations period, the panel concluded that it could not determine as a matter of law that the conduct did not constitute a continuing pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory treatment extending into the three years preceding the filing of the complaint. Under established precedent, such a pattern, if proven, would render the claims timely.
Turning to the merits, the Court held that the complaint adequately pleaded employment discrimination. Keenan alleged that she belonged to two protected classes—sex and age—and that despite her qualifications, including twenty‑five years of service as a Bloomberg news anchor, she was treated less favorably than younger and male colleagues. She asserted that she was repeatedly assigned late‑night shifts while similarly situated peers received earlier, higher‑visibility time slots; that she was denied assignments in her areas of expertise, such as energy and cryptocurrency reporting, which were instead given to younger, less experienced reporters; and that she was refused essential remote‑work equipment that was provided to male and younger employees. These allegations, the Court held, were sufficient to support an inference of discriminatory intent at the pleading stage.
Keenan further alleged that after she complained internally about the disparate treatment, Bloomberg retaliated against her and ultimately terminated her employment. Affording the plaintiff every favorable inference, as required on a CPLR 3211 motion, the Court found that the complaint adequately stated claims for discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
The Court also concluded that Keenan sufficiently pleaded a violation of New York’s Equal Pay Act. She identified specific comparators who allegedly performed equivalent or substantially similar work but received higher compensation, thereby providing Bloomberg with fair notice of the basis for the claim.
Finally, the Court held that the complaint stated a viable disparate‑impact claim. Keenan alleged that Bloomberg’s evaluation system, though facially neutral, granted supervisors broad discretion that was used in practice to disadvantage women and older employees. She asserted that this system resulted in her pay being “frozen” for more than a decade and contributed to disparities in advancement and compensation. These allegations, the Court found, were adequate to plead the existence of a neutral policy that disproportionately harmed protected groups.
Having found no merit in Bloomberg’s remaining arguments, the First Department unanimously affirmed the order, allowing the action to proceed.
Think they found that outcome "chilling?"
# # #
DECISION